Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

solanokiedaisch This documentary was filled with a great deal of bias and half truths to spin a narrative that I can only assume is coming from an emotionally impelled hatred and bias. Logic was almost entirely lacking. I'm not a Moore fan myself or politically motivated in my analysis of this documentary but I suppose if I were somehow biased against Moore, a narrative of this type would simply be a conformation bias that would make me feel good and vindicated... all while lacking any real substance. Shameful imo.

cineastFGD I say it upfront, coming from Europe I like Michael Moore, most probably because I share his political ideas. However I'm no die hard fan of his. I watched a couple of his documentaries and found them entertaining. Still, I was never one second in doubt that he bent the truth to fit his narrative in order to make the story more entertaining and to emphasize a certain point. Whoever takes Michael Moore's films literally and sees them as the beacon of truth is a fool. And as such I would describe this filmmaker couple of 'Manufacturing Dissent'. The story strikes me as a film that starts out with two naive and blinded fans who end up butt hurt because they figure out that their huge idol is not as approachable as they thought. These people are two nobody's who stalk a very famous and probably very busy guy and get busted along the way, as most people would get busted if they started running after their famous idol. However, it seems they cannot accept that the mere fact that they decided to make a documentary on Michael Moore and them being Canadians doesn't open all doors to them. At some point they try to take unauthorized footage of one of his speeches and naturally get kicked out. They use this episode to claim that Moore prohibits their right of free speech? Sorry, what? First of all, what does filming have to do with free speech and, secondly, one cannot just walk into an event and film commercial material without seeking authorization first. As the film progresses, the narrative becomes increasingly negative and they start to present themselves as victims shunned and threatened by the tough staff of Michael Moore, who out of some inexplicable reason doesn't want to talk to them, despite of them being Canadians, heaven forbid. Well, what about him being extremely busy at the time - to the point of total exhaustion, as he told many times in later interviews. The film is a long chain of complaints by people who hold a grunge against Moore out of various reasons, as well as footage from people who simply don't like him and his political agenda. Accusations are taken at face value and go totally unchecked, which makes the journalistic value of this documentary questionable and gives it a sensationalist underpinning. Sure, Moore probably has a huge ego, which person working in the movie industry hasn't? Sure, Moore is probably no angel and being as exposed as he is, it's probably no too hard to find some people whose toes he stepped on. But to accuse him of manipulation of the same level as Nazi Germany's propaganda machine, to indicate he hurt the Kerry campaign through his documentaries and support, and thereby enabled Bush's reelection, is outright ridiculous and straps this documentary of the last rest of credibility.

michael_the_nermal Some plot spoilers ahead.This movie may seem like an anti-Michael Moore screed, but in reality it was a lot more balanced on the issue than I had originally anticipated. I was actually surprised that the filmmakers were able to interview people who worked with Michael Moore, or those who supported the movies he had done. To be fair, this movie was biased towards an anti-Moore bent, but on the whole the criticism was not vicious.It was amusing to see the filmmakers use the same tactics that Moore used in his movies against him, such as using fake credentials to get into an event, or shoving a microphone in a celebrity's face, in this case Moore himself. To his credit, Moore seemed very gracious and respectful towards the filmmakers, unlike the secretaries and company representatives who rebuffed Moore in "Roger and Me."As with Moore's own films, one must be wary of the claims those being interviewed made against Moore, such as the assertion that Moore *did* interview Roger Smith, or that Moore's charity was tied up with some big-name defense companies. Moore has just as much right to deny these claims as anyone who is accused by Moore of doing something suspicious. I recommend doing your own research before you swallow some of the claims presented in "Manufacturing Dissent"; though, to be be fair, those being interviewed, or some anti-Moore book, make the claims against Moore, rather than the filmmakers themselves. The "Donahue" footage, though, seems credible.Some of the best stuff is in the deleted scenes of the DVD, such as the parody of the cartoon from "Bowling for Columbine", which had the same ultra-cheap computer-animated style and fast-paced dialogue and narration. I also liked the discussion of Flint's affinity for "Coney Island Hot Dogs."I recommend this movie as a counterpoint to Michael Moore's bold so-called "documentaries", but be careful with regards to some the claims made by the filmmakers here.

dfle3 If you've heard somewhere that the documentary movie maker Michael Moore ("Fahrenheit 9/11", "Bowling for Columbine" etc.) isn't honest about the stuff he presents in his movies as "facts", then this is the documentary for you.Employing the same guerrilla tactics as Moore himself, documentarian Debbie Melnyk pretty much stalks Moore, in trying to get an extended interview with him for her documentary. She says from the outset that she is a fan of his documentaries but, perhaps acting like an unrequited lover, she goes over all the incidents/scandals of Moore's professional life-from his time as the editor of a left-wing magazine (before he tried his hand at making documentaries) to the footage he used out of context in "Fahrenheit 9/11".Melnyk has got good access to people who identify themselves as Moore's friends (or as ex-friends), which gives you a broader insight into his character than Melnyk alone].There is one telling scene in the movie where a critic of Moore says that it was possible for someone to be against certain US foreign policies but yet not be an apologist for certain South American or Central American dictators (which Moore is accused of being). This is the main fault of Melnyk's film, I think. In other words, in the same way as devotees of Moore will lap up his attacks on the right-wing in the US and disregard some of Moore's own 'sins', die-hard right-wingers will watch this documentary and consider it to demolish all of Moore's claims. Manufacturing Dissent seems, in essence, part of the right-wing 'backlash' against Moore, even though Melnyk may have initially intended to do a positive piece on him.There is a funny scene towards the end of the movie where Melnyk acts the infatutated school-girl with Moore despite there being friction between her and Moore over his evasiveness in agreeing to be interviewed by her.For people like myself, I think it is possible to agree with some of the assertions in this film yet not think Moore is total bunk.Many of Melnyk's bleatings are risibly half-baked.